Margarita Chess and David Chess v. James P. Covey, as Trustee, Etc.
Docket 4D2024-3267
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 4D2024-3267
Appeal from a circuit court order resolving disputes between a trustee and beneficiaries regarding trust expenditures
Summary
The appellate court reviewed portions of a circuit court order in a trust dispute between the parents (appellants) and the trustee (appellee) over expenditures for a disabled adult beneficiary. The court dismissed the appeal insofar as the parents sought review of compensation for their caregiving because the trial court’s order showed judicial labor on that issue had not concluded. For the remaining issues, the court affirmed the trial court’s rulings: sale of a residential condominium, reimbursement for a truck purchase, the parties’ agreement to use a “Dynamic Dividend Strategy” (but not a specific implementation option), and the sale of an office condominium did not violate due process.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appeal as to parental caregiving compensation was ripe for review given the trial court's continuing judicial labor on that matter
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering the sale of a residential condominium
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding reimbursement for a truck purchase
- Whether the court erroneously found the parties had stipulated to a specific reallocation of the trust's investments or violated due process by ordering sale of an office condominium
Court's Reasoning
The court dismissed review of the caregiving compensation issue because the order on its face showed ongoing judicial activity, making that portion not final and therefore not ripe for appeal. For the affirmed issues, the record did not show the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the condominium sale or in approving truck reimbursement. The hearing transcript showed the parties agreed to use the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy,” but they did not agree to one of five specific implementation options, so the trial court's interpretation tracked the parties' statements. The court also found no due process violation in ordering the office condominium sale based on the record.
Parties
- Appellant
- Margarita Chess
- Appellant
- David Chess
- Appellee
- James P. Covey, as Trustee of the Addison Nikoli Chess Irrevocable Special Needs Trust u/a/d December 22, 2010, the Addison Nikoli Chess Irrevocable Trust u/a/d March 12, 2013, and Addison Nikoli Chess
- Judge
- Michael Joseph McNicholas
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-05-06
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Await final trial-court ruling on caregiving compensation
Do not refile an appeal on compensation until the circuit court issues a final order resolving that matter; monitor the trial-court docket and deadlines.
- 2
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If a party believes the panel overlooked an argument, timely-file a motion for rehearing in the appellate court as permitted.
- 3
Prepare for implementation of affirmed orders
Comply with or seek clarification from the trial court about executing the approved condominium sales, truck reimbursement, and investment actions consistent with the court's rulings.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide overall?
- The court dismissed part of the appeal as not final and otherwise affirmed the trial court's rulings on property sales, reimbursement, and investment strategy issues.
- Why was part of the appeal dismissed?
- Because the trial court's order showed judicial work on the parental caregiving compensation issue had not finished, making that portion not final and not yet appealable.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The trustee, the beneficiary, and the parents who care for the disabled adult are directly affected because the court upheld the trustee's actions on sales, reimbursements, and investment strategy implementation.
- Can the appellants seek further review?
- They may seek to appeal the dismissed issue once the trial court issues a final determination on caregiving compensation; they could also consider timely motions for rehearing in this appeal as noted by the court.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
MARGARITA CHESS and DAVID CHESS,
Appellants,
v.
JAMES P. COVEY, as Trustee of the ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS
IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST u/a/d December 22, 2010,
the ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS IRREVOCABLE TRUST
u/a/d March 12, 2013, and ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS,
Appellees.
No. 4D2024-3267
[May 6, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Martin County; Michael Joseph McNicholas, Judge; L.T. Case No.
432024CA000125CAAXMX.
Jonathan Thomas Mann and Robin I. Bresky of Schwartz Sladkus
Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, Boca Raton, for appellants.
Robert Jeffrey Hauser of Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., West Palm Beach,
and Edward Downey and Robert Lee McElroy, IV, of Downey │ McElroy,
P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of a dispute over trust expenditures for a
disabled adult who is under the care of the appellants, his parents. The
trustee sought the circuit court’s resolution of multiple disagreements
between himself and the appellants. We dismiss the appeal to the extent
the appellants seek review of the portion of the circuit court’s order
addressing compensation for the parents’ caregiving, as the face of the
order reflects that judicial labor has not ended on that matter. We
otherwise affirm.
The appellants argue the circuit court abused its discretion in
determinations it made regarding the sale of the Fort Pierce residential
condominium and reimbursement for a truck purchase. We affirm on
those points, as the record does not reflect an abuse of discretion.
The appellants also argue that the trial court erred in finding the parties
stipulated to reallocation of the trust’s investments in a specified manner.
However, we see no error. The hearing transcript reflects that the parties
agreed to utilization of the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy” for investing the
trust’s assets, and they disagreed as to which of five options should be
used in implementing the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy.” The order, read
in the context of statements made at the hearing, indicates the parties
agreed to utilization of the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy.” The order does
not indicate that the parties agreed to any one of five options. Finally,
based on the record, including statements made during the hearing, we
find the circuit court did not violate due process by ordering the sale of an
office condominium.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
2